I just got back from a week in London for a dental conference.

I flew UA DEN-LHR return (UA26 DEN-LHR 23 July and UA27 LHR-DEN 30 July), the nonstop DEN-LHR route recently begun by UA using a 787-8. I arrived at and departed from the new Terminal 2 ("Queen's Terminal"). It's a lovely new terminal, inside and out! Whilst taxying around LHR upon arrival on 24 July, I saw T3 still busy as ever; I last used T3 when I flew BA there from DEN in January 2016. T1 appeared to be completely unused with a lot of construction around it (and I assume T1 will be razed soon). My UA 787 parked at the T2 satellite.

I used to live in London (2004-2007) and planespotted there often during that time, and witnessed the building of T5. T1, T2, and T3 were still in their original configurations then. I made my first return visit to London in 2016, and saw the beginnings of a new T2, and T5 was complete with 2 satellites. In 2016 I used T3 with my BA 747 from DEN. When I used T2 this past week, I saw all the Star Alliance carriers located there.

I assume T1 (which appeared to be abandoned) will be razed soon, and I also assume T2's main building will be extended northward to cover that footprint. Will T2 become a Heathrow East with more satellites? What will become of T3? What about T4?

SmithAir747

Quick update as far as I’m aware....

T1... completely finished with, and as you say will be “razed”. The only part of T1 still functioning is the baggage system. This is for outbound baggage only for all T2 operators, as Ferrovial, or BAA or HAL or whoever .. ran out of ££££ so they still use the T1 baggage system. It’s very noticeable as you arrive into the CTA, there’s a huge diagonal building that runs all checked T2 baggage to the old T1 system.
BTW all arriving baggage goes direct to T2, they saved a few spondulicks for the baggage belts.
T2. Great terminal as you found out.... plan is to knock what’s ledt of T1 down, and continue building northwards towards Bravo taxiway. Also, shouldn’t be too long before Kilo taxiway runs right thru linking Bravo, north to south.
T3. Effectively The Oneworld Terminal, however, interlopers abound.. VS/DL to name a few..... still too small and always busy.. stand availability a mare.
T4. Skyteam Terminal and Weirdos.... inc. a few Oneworld stragglers... QR,MH.

Excuse the typo’s... isn’t my phone, with fat thumbs.

TUGMASTER wrote:

Quick update as far as I’m aware....

T1... completely finished with, and as you say will be “razed”. The only part of T1 still functioning is the baggage system. This is for outbound baggage only for all T2 operators, as Ferrovial, or BAA or HAL or whoever .. ran out of ££££ so they still use the T1 baggage system. It’s very noticeable as you arrive into the CTA, there’s a huge diagonal building that runs all checked T2 baggage to the old T1 system.
BTW all arriving baggage goes direct to T2, they saved a few spondulicks for the baggage belts.
T2. Great terminal as you found out.... plan is to knock what’s ledt of T1 down, and continue building northwards towards Bravo taxiway. Also, shouldn’t be too long before Kilo taxiway runs right thru linking Bravo, north to south.
T3. Effectively The Oneworld Terminal, however, interlopers abound.. VS/DL to name a few..... still too small and always busy.. stand availability a mare.
T4. Skyteam Terminal and Weirdos.... inc. a few Oneworld stragglers... QR,MH.

Excuse the typo’s... isn’t my phone, with fat thumbs.

T4 “Skyteam Terminal and Weirdos”. Hilarious!

If T5D ever gets built I imagine it would be possible to send the rest of BA over to T5 from T3.

Arion640 wrote:

If T5D ever gets built I imagine it would be possible to send the rest of BA over to T5 from T3.

AA too, in a perfect world.

evanb wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

If T5D ever gets built I imagine it would be possible to send the rest of BA over to T5 from T3.

AA too, in a perfect world.

I always wonder if EI would come over to T5 before AA. However, I did hear once IAG like keeping Aer Lingus in T2 to have some influence of what goes on over there.

SmithAir747 wrote:

I just got back from a week in London for a dental conference.

I flew UA DEN-LHR return (UA26 DEN-LHR 23 July and UA27 LHR-DEN 30 July), the nonstop DEN-LHR route recently begun by UA using a 787-8. I arrived at and departed from the new Terminal 2 ("Queen's Terminal"). It's a lovely new terminal, inside and out! Whilst taxying around LHR upon arrival on 24 July, I saw T3 still busy as ever; I last used T3 when I flew BA there from DEN in January 2016. T1 appeared to be completely unused with a lot of construction around it (and I assume T1 will be razed soon). My UA 787 parked at the T2 satellite.

I used to live in London (2004-2007) and planespotted there often during that time, and witnessed the building of T5. T1, T2, and T3 were still in their original configurations then. I made my first return visit to London in 2016, and saw the beginnings of a new T2, and T5 was complete with 2 satellites. In 2016 I used T3 with my BA 747 from DEN. When I used T2 this past week, I saw all the Star Alliance carriers located there.

I assume T1 (which appeared to be abandoned) will be razed soon, and I also assume T2's main building will be extended northward to cover that footprint. Will T2 become a Heathrow East with more satellites? What will become of T3? What about T4?

SmithAir747

T2 is lovely. Like T5 it's nice and modern, however unlike T5 it's not like a sardine can and it's very quiet.

Arion640 wrote:

evanb wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

If T5D ever gets built I imagine it would be possible to send the rest of BA over to T5 from T3.

AA too, in a perfect world.

I always wonder if EI would come over to T5 before AA. However, I did hear once IAG like keeping Aer Lingus in T2 to have some influence of what goes on over there.

Why isn’t all of BA and AA in T5? Do they have plans to co-locate eventually?

pdp wrote:

SmithAir747 wrote:

I just got back from a week in London for a dental conference.

I flew UA DEN-LHR return (UA26 DEN-LHR 23 July and UA27 LHR-DEN 30 July), the nonstop DEN-LHR route recently begun by UA using a 787-8. I arrived at and departed from the new Terminal 2 ("Queen's Terminal"). It's a lovely new terminal, inside and out! Whilst taxying around LHR upon arrival on 24 July, I saw T3 still busy as ever; I last used T3 when I flew BA there from DEN in January 2016. T1 appeared to be completely unused with a lot of construction around it (and I assume T1 will be razed soon). My UA 787 parked at the T2 satellite.

I used to live in London (2004-2007) and planespotted there often during that time, and witnessed the building of T5. T1, T2, and T3 were still in their original configurations then. I made my first return visit to London in 2016, and saw the beginnings of a new T2, and T5 was complete with 2 satellites. In 2016 I used T3 with my BA 747 from DEN. When I used T2 this past week, I saw all the Star Alliance carriers located there.

I assume T1 (which appeared to be abandoned) will be razed soon, and I also assume T2's main building will be extended northward to cover that footprint. Will T2 become a Heathrow East with more satellites? What will become of T3? What about T4?

SmithAir747

T2 is lovely. Like T5 it's nice and modern, however unlike T5 it's not like a sardine can and it's very quiet.

When will they finish the rest of T2?

ADrum23 wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

evanb wrote:

AA too, in a perfect world.

I always wonder if EI would come over to T5 before AA. However, I did hear once IAG like keeping Aer Lingus in T2 to have some influence of what goes on over there.

Why isn’t all of BA and AA in T5? Do they have plans to co-locate eventually?

There just simply isn’t the room at T5. Most of BA’s lower yielding flights sit at T3.

SmithAir747 wrote:

I assume T1 (which appeared to be abandoned) will be razed soon, and I also assume T2's main building will be extended northward to cover that footprint. Will T2 become a Heathrow East with more satellites? What will become of T3? What about T4?

SmithAir747

I was in T2 last week as well, to me it looks like they have started preparing the ground for the extension to T2, there’s a lot of heavy machinery and digging going on where the extension will be. The satellite will also be finished fairly soon the missing gates look close to being completed and the above ground walkway is long gone.

What would also be good is a simple overbridge from the bus station to T2, it’s about 50m away across a 4 lane road, it’s stupid that you have to walk for 10 minutes underground to get there.

Are there ANY plans to do something with T3? Just going by what others have mentioned on here, maybe with a T5D (rest of BA and AA go to T5) and the extension of T2 would that leave enough space to move the rest of the airlines so that T3 could be razed and rebuilt?

Google Earth has an updated view of LHR showing the latest developments at T1/T2. Must fairly recent as the QF 789 from Perth, the VS A346 ‘Big Virgin Atlantic Thank You’ and I believe the Etihad Year Of Zayed A380 can be seen.

Arion640 wrote:

I always wonder if EI would come over to T5 before AA. However, I did hear once IAG like keeping Aer Lingus in T2 to have some influence of what goes on over there.

Yeah, also in a perfect world. AA and EI moves would be quite different. EI need fewer gates but more consistently throughout the day, whereas AA need more gates, but for much shorter periods of the day.

Looking at T5 it seems like both T5A and T5B aren't built out to their full extant and I also don't get why the short haul gates on the north side of the central terminal complex are used anymore as it seems like if BA went back to using those it would open up more gates in T3

teneriffe77 wrote:

Looking at T5 it seems like both T5A and T5B aren't built out to their full extant and I also don't get why the short haul gates on the north side of the central terminal complex are used anymore as it seems like if BA went back to using those it would open up more gates in T3

Unless I've completely misunderstood you, the short haul gates you're talking about are actually on Pier 4A of Terminal 1 - the terminal that is closed and in process of being removed to allow T2 extension. Earlier posters have pointed out that the demolition of terminal 1 has already started.

teneriffe77 wrote:

Looking at T5 it seems like both T5A and T5B aren't built out to their full extant and I also don't get why the short haul gates on the north side of the central terminal complex are used anymore as it seems like if BA went back to using those it would open up more gates in T3

The terminals aren’t built out to their full extent but they do use that space for gates by using long jet bridges.

Who's going to use T6 then?

Thanks for pointing out the new google earth image! Very interesting!
I would imagine the old FCC in T3 can be removed now also which will free up another gate?
Is there a timeline for the demolition of T1? Has anything been announced regarding the next phase of building T2?

There really needs to be a long term plan to move BA Maintenance East, or make it much smaller. Perhaps moving it over to the south T4/VIP area, via a new taxiway near Hatton Cross. T4 does more harm than good and should go.

The freed up space would then enable the central area and east to be properly developed, regardless of a 3rd runway ever getting built.

jrfspa320 wrote:

I would imagine the old FCC in T3 can be removed now also which will free up another gate?

Once the new FCC in T3 is up and running... the current one will revert to stand 323. Lima 23 in old money.

A few posts up thread have wonder why T5B/C are not built the full length.... The answer is cost.
There was no reason or need to build all the way to the furthest stands with these terminals, when probably the longest walkways in the world will do.

Also mentioned was the building of T5D.This would I presume be inbetween taxiways Delta and Echo , in effect continuing the toast rack .
Problem is... all those stands around that area are already in use, so building T5D would have very little , if any help with ramp space constraints in T5.

TUGMASTER wrote:

jrfspa320 wrote:

I would imagine the old FCC in T3 can be removed now also which will free up another gate?

Once the new FCC in T3 is up and running... the current one will revert to stand 323. Lima 23 in old money.

A few posts up thread have wonder why T5B/C are not built the full length.... The answer is cost.
There was no reason or need to build all the way to the furthest stands with these terminals, when probably the longest walkways in the world will do.

Also mentioned was the building of T5D.This would I presume be inbetween taxiways Delta and Echo , in effect continuing the toast rack .
Problem is... all those stands around that area are already in use, so building T5D would have very little , if any help with ramp space constraints in T5.

There is no T5D in last plan illustrated. Instead there would be T3C on control tower's west which make the control tower an annex to the T3C. Then there would be a T3B east of the proposed T3C. The annoying part is that there would be no T3A, rather only the wing where Emirates is using currently would be left untouched. The whole T3 would disappear otherwise. My deep suspicion, by looking at the planning map, is that the north of T2 which sit on T1 and yet to be built, would be the main building for the 2 satellites T3B and T3C. And where the small wing of 4 A380 gates might be designated as T3A.

But everything is still subjected to change.

T2 and T1 used to be interlinked with T1 having also some sort of satellite for Ireland Operations (EI and BA).
T1 is gone and will be demolished.
T2 used to be the worst terminal in Britain - now Is one of the best, if not the best. It is the Star Alliance Terminal and will be extended to occupy the footprint of T1 (or at least most of it).
T3 is the next in the list. It is supposed to be demolished or revamped one way or another (plans differ depending on sources...). This terminal is the Oneworld terminal and also serves airlines that are not on an alliance like EK.
T4 is the Skyservice one and I haven't heard anything about this one. It used to be great when it was built but now is tired and in desperate need of an uplifting.
T5 is IAG's Terminal (BA and IB). The BA Flights on T3 and EI Flights on T2 are only there, not because of influence or whatsoever. It is simply because T5 has no more space available. I believe Aer Lingus will end up there when/if they manage to get some space on T5 through re-planning/expansion, etc...

The only thing on this is that I wonder why did they not move DL/VS to Terminal 4 and sent QR, MH, Oman Air and others to T3... Although VS is not on an alliance, it is practically a DL off-shot.

As for T6, who knows? Does anybody know when will it be built? Size? The 3rd Runway was approved by the Government but expect tons of Legal Action, Protests, etc. until it gets built. I would say that T6 will not be built before so hard to say what shape that one will have...

Jomar777 wrote:

The only thing on this is that I wonder why did they not move DL/VS to Terminal 4 and sent QR, MH, Oman Air and others to T3... Although VS is not on an alliance, it is practically a DL off-shot.

Heathrow Airport did want VS/DL in T4 and QR & MH in T3. The airlines refused to move on the grounds that they had spent a lot on providing lounges where they are now.
Oman Air is actually where the airport plan says it should be. T4 is officially Skyteam and also unaligned airlines, and Oman Air falls into the unaligned airlines category.
There are other moves that should have happened if the plan had been kept to strictly - for example EK ought to be in T4 according to the plan, but is in T3. If all the airlines that ought to be in T4 actually were, they probably wouldn't all fit....

Jomar777 wrote:

The only thing on this is that I wonder why did they not move DL/VS to Terminal 4 and sent QR, MH, Oman Air and others to T3... Although VS is not on an alliance, it is practically a DL off-shot.

As for T6, who knows? Does anybody know when will it be built? Size? The 3rd Runway was approved by the Government but expect tons of Legal Action, Protests, etc. until it gets built. I would say that T6 will not be built before so hard to say what shape that one will have...

The reason I believe is that VS does not wish to move mainly due to its investments on the Club house and the new wing they opened few years back on the south end of T3. And Heathrow Airport could not provide an alternative plan for VS to move that assets to T4.

Of course now if Heathrow Airport is to demolish the current T3 in a decade of time, VS may have to move either to T2 North or T4.

Then it will get even messier if the rumoured US pre-clearance get approved (although much less likely than T6 being built at this moment). In that case, both VS and DL would wish to use such facility.

T6 would be at least 15-20 years away. The next 5-10 years would be completion of T2 first, then followed by Heathrow East project (moving some of maintenance facility even more east, so that it can clear way for a new taxiway and eventually T2C east of the T2B). I think last time I read from Heathrow airport regarding T3, it would not happen until the north of T2A is completed.

But again plan changes. And there is no final master plan issued yet. All pieces of information are released at different stages during last 10 years.

chonetsao wrote:

There is no T5D in last plan illustrated. Instead there would be T3C on control tower's west which make the control tower an annex to the T3C. Then there would be a T3B east of the proposed T3C. The annoying part is that there would be no T3A, rather only the wing where Emirates is using currently would be left untouched. The whole T3 would disappear otherwise. My deep suspicion, by looking at the planning map, is that the north of T2 which sit on T1 and yet to be built, would be the main building for the 2 satellites T3B and T3C. And where the small wing of 4 A380 gates might be designated as T3A.

But everything is still subjected to change.

Agree with most part. Thanks to the updated Google Earth we can see now the surroundings of ghost Terminal1. If you search "Heathrow expansion" in Google and select "images" you can see how Heathrow should look in the future. Dark yellow areas are hard stands and light are remote.

As you say, everything is still subjected to change, but the guideness is clear: toast rack between current runways.

T5D will not be built, and as many say here, it won't help moving oneword under T5. There is simply no capacity at T5A to handle more than half of LHR traffic. And I mean people and baggage.

One has to notice that a theoretical T5D would be the same as when T5C was finally built. It didn't add any extra capacity as the stands around the building were already in use as remotes. It only converted 12 remotes to 12 jet-bridged-T5C gates.

In the space of the virtual T5D, there are already 13 remote stands. Tearing down the fire station and the water tanks would only convert 13 remotes into 2 remotes and 14 jet-bridged gates. The cost/benefit is simply not there.

Arion640 wrote:

ADrum23 wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

I always wonder if EI would come over to T5 before AA. However, I did hear once IAG like keeping Aer Lingus in T2 to have some influence of what goes on over there.

Why isn’t all of BA and AA in T5? Do they have plans to co-locate eventually?

There just simply isn’t the room at T5. Most of BA’s lower yielding flights sit at T3.

It's not based on yield surely? A380 to Vancouver? Las Vegas, Barcelona?

uta999 wrote:

The freed up space would then enable the central area and east to be properly developed, regardless of a 3rd runway ever getting built.

You don't need to demolish the #1 base if there's no 3rd runway, T2A completion and any T2C with the current two runways would surely hit the limits of capacity.

When T2 finishes its expansion, will a number of non-aligned carriers move in ? In the medium term until the 3rd runway is built, It seems like it would be over-capacity for Star Alliance alone

as mentioned there seem to be a few different plans for the island and T3, either a 'new' T3 in its present position, but I've also seen a plan where all the operations seem to be in T2 north, and T3 is just stands.

Wondering with the destruction of T1 if the new T6 will just be renamed T1.

Bit of trivia, but other than LHR, which other airports are missing terminals from their correct order?! JFK comes to mind, missing terminals 3 & 6.

Arion640 wrote:

TUGMASTER wrote:

Quick update as far as I’m aware....

T1... completely finished with, and as you say will be “razed”. The only part of T1 still functioning is the baggage system. This is for outbound baggage only for all T2 operators, as Ferrovial, or BAA or HAL or whoever .. ran out of ££££ so they still use the T1 baggage system. It’s very noticeable as you arrive into the CTA, there’s a huge diagonal building that runs all checked T2 baggage to the old T1 system.
BTW all arriving baggage goes direct to T2, they saved a few spondulicks for the baggage belts.
T2. Great terminal as you found out.... plan is to knock what’s ledt of T1 down, and continue building northwards towards Bravo taxiway. Also, shouldn’t be too long before Kilo taxiway runs right thru linking Bravo, north to south.
T3. Effectively The Oneworld Terminal, however, interlopers abound.. VS/DL to name a few..... still too small and always busy.. stand availability a mare.
T4. Skyteam Terminal and Weirdos.... inc. a few Oneworld stragglers... QR,MH.

Excuse the typo’s... isn’t my phone, with fat thumbs.

T4 “Skyteam Terminal and Weirdos”. Hilarious!

If T5D ever gets built I imagine it would be possible to send the rest of BA over to T5 from T3.

Yes T2 is pretty much Star Alliance and T3 and T4 are both a horrible OW and SkyTeam mix.

They wanted DL to move to T4 and then QR and MH to move to T3 but Delta didn't want to move because of something. Also EK are at T3 and they might have had to move due to space but they didn't want to either because of their lounge and everything all perfectly set up.

Basically they wanted T2 Star, T3 OneWorld, T4 Skyteam with other stragglers in each such as EY/EK and other non alliance carriers. Too many airlines did not want to move so it didn't happen.

skipness1E wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

ADrum23 wrote:

Why isn’t all of BA and AA in T5? Do they have plans to co-locate eventually?

There just simply isn’t the room at T5. Most of BA’s lower yielding flights sit at T3.

It's not based on yield surely? A380 to Vancouver? Las Vegas, Barcelona?

It is not to do with yields really. The flights with the least connecting passengers generally at T3 because there is no easy airside transfer of passengers between terminals so can't easily connect on T5 BA flights. Also if T5 got bigger then BA would mover in. I don't think AA would swap as they would rather be with all the OneWorld carriers in T3. No need for them to move over other carriers. If anything like IB the other IAG carriers would go first. EI, VY etc..

Slightly off topic, but 2 weeks ago flew British Airways from Budapest to DFW, connecting in LHR. Connecting in LHR was a nightmare. Even the LHR website says to allow at least 90 minutes. This was my first time in LHR and I figured connecting BA to BA would not be a problem. WRONG!! Landed at T3 at a remote stand, had to wait to board a bus to get to T3 main building. Then a long walk through a maze of corridors to get to the bus stop for T5. A crazy bus ride to T5 and then a long walk to the T5 main Hall. Then through security again (didn't I already go through security in Budapest???) and painstakingly slow inspections of carry on bags with very rude screeners. Finally through security after 30 minutes of lines, then another long walk to ride the underground train to terminal T5B, then more long walking to finally get to the gate. Ready to board...NOT YET! Random security check, asked to step out of line, down an elevator to another security hall, bags emptied and searched again, intimate pat down and then finally allowed to board. The whole ordeal took over 2.5 hours, almost missed my flight. Not a happy experience and a difficult end to a great vacation. In future I will avoid LHR if possible.

Johnv707 wrote:

Slightly off topic, but 2 weeks ago flew British Airways from Budapest to DFW, connecting in LHR. Connecting in LHR was a nightmare. Even the LHR website says to allow at least 90 minutes. This was my first time in LHR and I figured connecting BA to BA would not be a problem. WRONG!! Landed at T3 at a remote stand, had to wait to board a bus to get to T3 main building. Then a long walk through a maze of corridors to get to the bus stop for T5. A crazy bus ride to T5 and then a long walk to the T5 main Hall. Then through security again (didn't I already go through security in Budapest???) and painstakingly slow inspections of carry on bags with very rude screeners. Finally through security after 30 minutes of lines, then another long walk to ride the underground train to terminal T5B, then more long walking to finally get to the gate. Ready to board...NOT YET! Random security check, asked to step out of line, down an elevator to another security hall, bags emptied and searched again, intimate pat down and then finally allowed to board. The whole ordeal took over 2.5 hours, almost missed my flight. Not a happy experience and a difficult end to a great vacation. In future I will avoid LHR if possible.

Heathrow now handles over 78 million people per year, using just two runways, and the four terminals, three of which are either life expired, or waiting for expansion. That's an average of 213,700 per day. Can you imagine trying to screen and process that many people properly and securely. Yes, some are going to get pulled if they tick the right boxes. Some are going to meet unhappy or stressed staff, and some might have a long walk or ride when they transfer planes. It does not however take away the remarkable work done everyday by most people that work there.

There are not enough runways, stands or taxiways. T4 makes everything awkward, and there are no holding points on 09L. Mixed mode landings are only allowed for one hour a day, and operations are not allowed at night! Then you have the weather, ATC strikes in Europe, 98% operational capacity, The local Nimby brigade who hate everything, Noise abatement, and Climate change nonsense ALL blamed on LHR.

I think Heathrow does pretty well considering...

Johnv707 wrote:

Slightly off topic, but 2 weeks ago flew British Airways from Budapest to DFW, connecting in LHR. Connecting in LHR was a nightmare. Even the LHR website says to allow at least 90 minutes. This was my first time in LHR and I figured connecting BA to BA would not be a problem. WRONG!! Landed at T3 at a remote stand, had to wait to board a bus to get to T3 main building. Then a long walk through a maze of corridors to get to the bus stop for T5. A crazy bus ride to T5 and then a long walk to the T5 main Hall. Then through security again (didn't I already go through security in Budapest???) and painstakingly slow inspections of carry on bags with very rude screeners. Finally through security after 30 minutes of lines, then another long walk to ride the underground train to terminal T5B, then more long walking to finally get to the gate. Ready to board...NOT YET! Random security check, asked to step out of line, down an elevator to another security hall, bags emptied and searched again, intimate pat down and then finally allowed to board. The whole ordeal took over 2.5 hours, almost missed my flight. Not a happy experience and a difficult end to a great vacation. In future I will avoid LHR if possible.

That's not necessarily LHR fault. Any change of terminal airside is a nightmare. If you were connecting just within T3 or T5 then it really is not that bad.

Johnv707 wrote:

Then through security again (didn't I already go through security in Budapest???)

UK does not trust any other country's security. It is far from unique in this. Try making an international to international connection in DFW and see what happens.

Ready to board...NOT YET! Random security check, asked to step out of line, down an elevator to another security hall, bags emptied and searched again, intimate pat down and then finally allowed to board. The whole ordeal took over 2.5 hours, almost missed my flight. Not a happy experience and a difficult end to a great vacation. In future I will avoid LHR if possible.

The second security check is a US government requirement, nothing to do with the UK. Doesn't happen on flights from LHR to other destinations, does happen at other European hub airports too for flights to the USA. Good luck with connecting in FRA/MUC/AMS/CDG/MAD etc and avoiding it.

Andy33 wrote:

Johnv707 wrote:

Then through security again (didn't I already go through security in Budapest???)

UK does not trust any other country's security. It is far from unique in this. Try making an international to international connection in DFW and see what happens.

Ready to board...NOT YET! Random security check, asked to step out of line, down an elevator to another security hall, bags emptied and searched again, intimate pat down and then finally allowed to board. The whole ordeal took over 2.5 hours, almost missed my flight. Not a happy experience and a difficult end to a great vacation. In future I will avoid LHR if possible.

The second security check is a US government requirement, nothing to do with the UK. Doesn't happen on flights from LHR to other destinations, does happen at other European hub airports too for flights to the USA. Good luck with connecting in FRA/MUC/AMS/CDG/MAD etc and avoiding it.

Yes some of those airports are dreadful. MAD is hopeless. CDG is a nightmare and AMS is very airline dependent. FRA is a disaster of an airport in some terminals and chaotic. MUC isn't that bad. But I'd connect through Heathrow (provided same terminal) anyday over those other airports.

CarbonFibre wrote:

Who's going to use T6 then?

'T6' will be part of Heathrow West (back to back with Terminal 5, hardly any gates at the main building with most of the gates at a satellite pier between the current Northern runway and the new runway). I imagine BA will be quite keen to use this to expand their operations when the 3rd runway opens, perhaps also co-located Aer Lingus, their remaining BA T3 flights and AA flights.

On a different note I'm sure I read somewhere that Easyjet were interested in using T4

It would be nice to get rid of T4, it's too small and the wrong shape, poorly located and splits public transport, as trains and tubes have to divide between T4 and T5 whereas the new T6 will share the same T5 railway stations.

Johnv707 wrote:

That's not necessarily LHR fault. Any change of terminal airside is a nightmare. If you were connecting just within T3 or T5 then it really is not that bad.

As other have said... That's not a LHR thing but how UK imposes rescan all passengers not landing from the UK. So almost all passengers have to go through either immigration or security for connecting passengers. That adds time (and cost) after landing

Andy33 wrote:

UK does not trust any other country's security. It is far from unique in this. Try making an international to international connection in DFW and see what happens.

The is a little difference. Almost all connecting traffic at LHR is intl to intl. At DFW way more than half of the inbound passengers are secured to make it to their onward flight with no other procedure to clear.

Again off topic, but what is this extra US security check. I took a United flight in april 2017 flying LHR --> IAD --> DEN from T2. I never went through extra security. Just boarded the plane like normal.

Aisak wrote:

Andy33 wrote:

UK does not trust any other country's security. It is far from unique in this. Try making an international to international connection in DFW and see what happens.

The is a little difference. Almost all connecting traffic at LHR is intl to intl. At DFW way more than half of the inbound passengers are secured to make it to their onward flight with no other procedure to clear.

Heathrow Domestic -> International transfers are actually really slick, very brief boarding pass check then straight into departures with no hassle. Inbound is difficult both logistically (separate arrivals streams) and politically (some countries would be offended if we told them we didn't think much of their security policies) so it's easier to scan everyone. Cross terminal transfers aren't fun I agree, but particularly if you're within T5 Heathrow isn't a bad connecting airport.

And unlike the US, if you are connecting to a Domestic they will check your bag straight through to the destination airport where you clear customs, you don't have to claim it and re-check.

[threeid][/threeid]

BritTraveller wrote:

Again off topic, but what is this extra US security check. I took a United flight in april 2017 flying LHR --> IAD --> DEN from T2. I never went through extra security. Just boarded the plane like normal.

I think they may be on about a random one the Americans do. I was pulled at the gate in KEF on my way to SEA last year.

AirbusA6 wrote:

It would be nice to get rid of T4, it's too small and the wrong shape, poorly located and splits public transport, as trains and tubes have to divide between T4 and T5 whereas the new T6 will share the same T5 railway stations.

It really is awful. I did a flight on QR this summer on the A380 and they had to halt departures on 09R so we and the Etihad A380 could cross. Understandable however, that the A380 wasn’t about when T4 was built.

What should of happened looking back, was the maintenance sheds should of been moved onto the T4 site, while T4 should of gone where the maintanence hangers are.

It would of taken a couple of years and cost a bit more but would be a much more efficient operation today.

Andy33 wrote:

Johnv707 wrote:

Then through security again (didn't I already go through security in Budapest???)

UK does not trust any other country's security. It is far from unique in this. Try making an international to international connection in DFW and see what happens.

Ready to board...NOT YET! Random security check, asked to step out of line, down an elevator to another security hall, bags emptied and searched again, intimate pat down and then finally allowed to board. The whole ordeal took over 2.5 hours, almost missed my flight. Not a happy experience and a difficult end to a great vacation. In future I will avoid LHR if possible.

The second security check is a US government requirement, nothing to do with the UK. Doesn't happen on flights from LHR to other destinations, does happen at other European hub airports too for flights to the USA. Good luck with connecting in FRA/MUC/AMS/CDG/MAD etc and avoiding it.

LHR is easy to connect in, as long as you are connecting within T5 and do not have to leave. When I connected in LHR a few weeks ago, it was relatively painless, I even found security easier than the US (I must have caught them on a good day). However, connecting from say, T3 to T5 can be difficult.

It would be nice if LHR would consolidate the T3 AA and remaining BA flights into T5, but that would require building Concourse D and I don't see any plans to do so at the present time.

Arion640 wrote:

AirbusA6 wrote:

It would be nice to get rid of T4, it's too small and the wrong shape, poorly located and splits public transport, as trains and tubes have to divide between T4 and T5 whereas the new T6 will share the same T5 railway stations.

It really is awful. I did a flight on QR this summer on the A380 and they had to halt departures on 09R so we and the Etihad A380 could cross. Understandable however, that the A380 wasn’t about when T4 was built.

What should of happened looking back, was the maintenance sheds should of been moved onto the T4 site, while T4 should of gone where the maintanence hangers are.

It would of taken a couple of years and cost a bit more but would be a much more efficient operation today.

The land where the maintenance area is at LHR is owned by British Airways and not Heathrow Airport Limited so why would they want to relocate elsewhere within the airport although the Diamond Hangar is due for demolition shortly so that the taxiways can be expanded to accommodate Terminal 2C.

george77300 wrote:

skipness1E wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

There just simply isn’t the room at T5. Most of BA’s lower yielding flights sit at T3.

It's not based on yield surely? A380 to Vancouver? Las Vegas, Barcelona?

It is not to do with yields really. The flights with the least connecting passengers generally at T3 because there is no easy airside transfer of passengers between terminals so can't easily connect on T5 BA flights. Also if T5 got bigger then BA would mover in. I don't think AA would swap as they would rather be with all the OneWorld carriers in T3. No need for them to move over other carriers. If anything like IB the other IAG carriers would go first. EI, VY etc..

I don't get your comments regarding AA ''would rather be with all the Oneworld carriers in T3''!

Considering that AA and BA have a JV I should imagine that your comments are rather different to the truth and I am sure that given the opportunity AA/BA would prefer to have AA at T5 but they are at T3 due to the simple fact that T5 is full and therefore can not accommodate them there as seen by BA also having to operate from T3.

FYI Iberia are already at T5 being the only other airline there other than BA.

ADrum23 wrote:

Andy33 wrote:

Johnv707 wrote:

Then through security again (didn't I already go through security in Budapest???)

UK does not trust any other country's security. It is far from unique in this. Try making an international to international connection in DFW and see what happens.

Ready to board...NOT YET! Random security check, asked to step out of line, down an elevator to another security hall, bags emptied and searched again, intimate pat down and then finally allowed to board. The whole ordeal took over 2.5 hours, almost missed my flight. Not a happy experience and a difficult end to a great vacation. In future I will avoid LHR if possible.

The second security check is a US government requirement, nothing to do with the UK. Doesn't happen on flights from LHR to other destinations, does happen at other European hub airports too for flights to the USA. Good luck with connecting in FRA/MUC/AMS/CDG/MAD etc and avoiding it.

LHR is easy to connect in, as long as you are connecting within T5 and do not have to leave. When I connected in LHR a few weeks ago, it was relatively painless, I even found security easier than the US (I must have caught them on a good day). However, connecting from say, T3 to T5 can be difficult.

It would be nice if LHR would consolidate the T3 AA and remaining BA flights into T5, but that would require building Concourse D and I don't see any plans to do so at the present time.

Regarding your proposed T5D

Please read previous threads, there was no plans for a T5D and there are no current plans a T5D.

If T5D was ever built it would only mean that the current active remote stands where the new satellite would be situated (where the Fire Station and water tanks are situated) that are consistently in use will be contact stands rather than remote stands.

There are absolutely hundreds of images online showing the future layout of LHR with a lot of recent images of how the CTA will eventually look.

What is the purpose of the large building to the East of T5A? It looks quite aesthetically appealing, but it has too few gates to justify its size imo

Cunard wrote:

george77300 wrote:

skipness1E wrote:

It's not based on yield surely? A380 to Vancouver? Las Vegas, Barcelona?

It is not to do with yields really. The flights with the least connecting passengers generally at T3 because there is no easy airside transfer of passengers between terminals so can't easily connect on T5 BA flights. Also if T5 got bigger then BA would mover in. I don't think AA would swap as they would rather be with all the OneWorld carriers in T3. No need for them to move over other carriers. If anything like IB the other IAG carriers would go first. EI, VY etc..

I don't get your comments regarding AA ''would rather be with all the Oneworld carriers in T3''!

Considering that AA and BA have a JV I should imagine that your comments are rather different to the truth and I am sure that given the opportunity AA/BA would prefer to have AA at T5 but they are at T3 due to the simple fact that T5 is full and therefore can not accommodate them there as seen by BA also having to operate from T3.

Or maybe just the other way around: move all BA JV services to T3. When BA stagered moved over to T5, BA had to keep some flights in T3 because T5 was not large enough. At the time BA decided to base the 757 fleet there because they couldn't handle containers for the hold and they were used on JV IB routes (MAD and BCN) and codeshared services to HEL (not JV at the time the planning was made but yes when executed) among others (NCE and AGP). Also 3 747 were based there at the end for the QF kangaroo JV routes.

Now, BA is some bigger, as they purchased bmi and some other slots, so more of BA has to be at T3 (or wherever). Maybe, if/when T2 is expanded north and (most of) non-OW carriers move out of T3, the site could get the same facilities as T5 (First wing, concorde room, arrivals lounge...) maybe and just maybe BA would be keen on consolidating all JV services with AA, AY, IB and JL at T3....

Cunard wrote:

FYI Iberia are already at T5 being the only other airline there other than BA.

That sentence is... "tricky". Yes, IB (and IB Express) use T5 but all systems at T5 can only handle BA flights. So IB flights have to be treated as BA flights so it's debatable any other airline other than sister IB will accept that kind of operation with BA handling services.

george77300 wrote:

If anything like IB the other IAG carriers would go first. EI, VY etc..

EI could be even a better fit at T5 than IB. Bearing in mind EI can only be housed at T5 or T2 as long as they the CTA is still in place, for the time being they are good at T2. IAG cannot "touch" EI timetable as slots are secured by an agreement signed with the Irish Government. Once this restriction expires (can't remember if 5 or 7 years timeframe) IAG will probably want Aer Lingus planes not to spend the night at LHR.
They would operate morning flghts Ireland-LHR while BA does morning LHR-Ireland and the reverse on the last flights of the evening (just like MAD with IB and BCN with VY). Until then, AerLingus at T5 would only mean the compleity of operating them as "BA flights" with no schedule swap advantage.

EI Will not go into T5 without some BA flights moving into T2.

T5 Has only got 1 CTA stand 523 and at times already has problems coping with BA DUB services. As T3 and T4 have no CTA facilities and no plans to create any you will not see too much of a change until Irish flights are reduced or next year Irish flights become international arrivals!

The original plan was for a T5D and the satellites to extend but after 9/11 Heathrow Airport decided that passenger numbers would never be the same and dropped T5D and BA decided not to build a lounge in T5C.